We are currently in the middle of a series in the book of Ruth. This past Sunday, I was preaching Ruth 3. This is the plan and execution of that plan that Naomi hatches for Ruth to snag Boaz.

The ambiguity of the wording in Ruth 3:3-4 has been the cause of some discussion among commentators. Some insist that Naomi is suggesting that Ruth should go and offer herself sexually to Boaz in a bid to entice him.  Others think Naomi is being entirely innocent in her suggestion and wouldn’t dream of implying anything nearly so crass. The wording, as I said, is ambiguous and can be read in different ways. There are a few contextual clues concerning how we might read this.

Firstly, it bears saying what we learn about Naomi in Chapter 1. She has returned to Israel because her sons have died. This tells us two significant things about Naomi. First, she left Israel and detached herself from God’s people (or, at least, her sons on whom she relied did so). Second, her sons had married foreign non-israelite women in direct contravention of the law. However we cut this, this is not a family who were particularly concerned with faithfulness.

Secondly, in chapter 2, Naomi announces to Ruth – who has been gleaning in Boaz’s fields – that he is ‘one of our guardian-redeemers’. It is a little detail that is easily overlooked, but Naomi seems aware at this point that Boaz is not the only guardian (or, kinsman) redeemer for the family. She is, therefore, making a conscious choice to direct Ruth towards Boaz in particular over the one we learn in chapter 3 (from Boaz) who is actually closer. Naomi seems to be seeking to circumvent the right of priority.

Third, and I think this is significant, if Naomi only has the formal and utterly chaste thought of sending Ruth to ask Boaz to be her family redeemer, why did she tell Ruth to ‘Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes’? This is entirely unnecessary, especially in the dead of night, if all she is there to do is announce that she is there to ascertain a legal provision.

On this basis, as I read it, Naomi is suggesting a bit more than simply sending Ruth for a little chat to firm up their legal standing. It seems – particularly within the arc of the story – that Naomi has come back to israel very bitter but as she has begun to experience the kindness to God towards her, she begins to look beyond herself and to the needs of others (namely, in chapter 3, the needs of Ruth). She also seems to be trusting in the sovereignty and goodness of God to provide for her and the plan she hatches, whilst it is clearly evidence of trust in God’s provision, seems to be predicated on helping God along with his provision in a way that is not altogether godly.

There are lots of examples of this kind of thing throughout scripture, not least with Abraham. Abraham was promised he would have a son and we are told explicitly he believed God and had faith that he would fulfil his promise. Nevertheless, we also see Abraham – despite believing God – seeking to help God along in not altogether godly ways. This is why he ended up sleeping with his servant, Hagar, how we ended up with his son, Ishamel, and why some significant family strife (and later significant issues for Israel) unfolded. It was an example of a real man with real faith seeking a good thing in an ungodly way. It seems to me that is what we have in Ruth 3 with Naomi,

What is perhaps more interesting is that Ruth acts as a counterpoint. The wording of Ruth 3:3-4 is ambiguous, and I think that is purposeful. Ruth says, ‘I will do whatever you say’ in v5 and then goes and follows Naomi’s plan absolutely literally. Except, in v9, Ruth goes off script and states in the clearest possible terms why she is there. Ruth does everything Naomi said but – whether out of godliness, innocence or something else – does not have sexual relations with Boaz. Boaz, being a godly man, similarly does not seek to take advantage of the situation in that way either.

This makes Ruth – a Moabitess – the one who is acting in a more godly way than Naomi, the Israelite who ought to have understood God’s law. This fits with the wider context of Ruth taking place against the background of the Judges and is a repeated biblical theme of God’s people in Israel being shown up in godliness by the nations roundabout them. It is not uncommon to see Israel acting like the Canaanites God judged and removed from the land and those from outside Israel doing the kind of things Israel was told in the law they ought to do. It is Ruth the Moabitess who appears to be upright and innocent rather than Naomi, whose faith is real at this point but far from perfect.

As I understand it, I think we see two key things here. First, we have a very human portrayal of faith. Naomi came back very bitter, but is growing in her faith. She evidently trusts in God’s provision here but seemingly, much like Abraham, not in such a way that she feels no need to help him along nor to avoid ungodliness in the search for what she needs. She is growing in her faith, trusting God’s provision but in evidently imperfect ways. This is often the reality of faith. It is rarely perfect, it is often faltering and it can typically trust in God’s goodness and provision whilst being willing to do what appears sensible to us regardless of what God would say.

Second, more negatively, Naomi is a good example of someone seeking perfectly legitimate and good ends through less than excellent means. She ultimately trusts God to provide but is willing to do what God would have her not do in order to achieve it. This is an ever-present and live danger for us. We may trust in God’s provision, we may trust in his goodness and we may seek after perfectly good and legitimate things. But it can be tempting to not wait on the Lord and to seek to move things along in ways that are sub-biblical and less than godly. Naomi is not a positive example to us in this; Ruth, however, is.